Formula 1 2018: General Discussion Thread

vectra

quokula wrote: »

There has never been a shred of evidence that Alonso knew a thing about Pat Symonds' crashgate plan, I don't think anyone seriously believes he knew about it, he expressed a lot of genuine surprise post race and even commented on the fact it was thanks to Piquet's crash.

WRONG!!
Are you under the illusion that Alonso was in a team where he didn't know waht was going on?
it is one thing Alonso had in every team he was with, He wanted to know EVERYTHING that was going on.

quokula wrote: »

And the Hungarian GP in 2007 was Alonso's reaction to the conspiracy against him at McLaren (Ron Dennis later let slip on the record that the team was against Alonso) due to his role in whistleblowing the corruption and cheating going on at the team.

WRONG AGAIN!

Alonso did the pitstop reaction to Lewis,
There was an agreement between Lewis and Alonso the Alonso would pit first, Lewis broke this by pitting first,
Then Alonso spewed his mouth off to Dennis about his information on Spygate.

MORE INFO HERE

skipper_G

vectra wrote: »

WRONG!!
Are you under the illusion that Alonso was in a team where he didn't know waht was going on?
it is one thing Alonso had in every team he was with, He wanted to know EVERYTHING that was going on.




WRONG AGAIN!

Alonso did the pitstop reaction to Lewis,
There was an agreement between Lewis and Alonso the Alonso would pit first, Lewis broke this by pitting first,
Then Alonso spewed his mouth off to Dennis about his information on Spygate.

MORE INFO HERE

Hearsay and speculation are not facts. Your response is simply calling another poster WRONG without any substance, all based on your own personal feeling about a driver. You've rambled on for post after post and I honestly don't even know what point you're trying to argue anymore. It's the same endless circular discussion.

vectra

skipper_G wrote: »

Hearsay and speculation are not facts. Your response is simply calling another poster WRONG without any substance, all based on your own personal feeling about a driver. You've rambled on for post after post and I honestly don't even know what point you're trying to argue anymore. It's the same endless circular discussion.

You might have failed to notice I was being questioned on certain points.
it is only polite to answer.
If you don't like my opinions, I am sure there are loads of other topics you can read.

Frank Bullitt

vectra wrote: »

I seriously think you are just bulling for an argument which you are not going to get from me.
But to answer your silly question.
First thing that springs to mind was what he did to Hamilton in Hungary 2007.
https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/10959867/fernando-alonso-lewis-hamilton-and-the-hungarian-gp-pit-stop-that-ended-a-mclaren-relationship


Also,
Don't forget "Crashgate"
Please do not tell me Alonso did not know what was going on back then.
I would consider that absolute disrespect for two of his teammates.
Whatever way you want to view it.
I really don't care.

2007 and the Hungarian GP, Alonso has already said that it was more of a protest against McLaren and Dennis than it was against Hamilton. The link even says "the pit stop that ended a McLaren relationship".

And again, going all the way back to 2007

As for "Crashgate, how did any of that have anything to do with showing disrespect to her teammate. FIA investigation shows that he had nothing to do with it, he didn't make Piquet crash and it was all on Briatore and Simmons. So if you have any evidence other than "Please do not tell me.." you should let the FIA know, they would love to hear from you on that one for sure.

If you just plainly said that you don't like Alonso and that was that, fair enough. But you try and lash in some evidence as to why he is some sort of sinister entity on F1, and you really have no evidence at all.

Frank Bullitt

skipper_G wrote: »

Hearsay and speculation are not facts. Your response is simply calling another poster WRONG without any substance, all based on your own personal feeling about a driver. You've rambled on for post after post and I honestly don't even know what point you're trying to argue anymore. It's the same endless circular discussion.

Nail...meet head.

Inviere

mickdw wrote: »

2 good points there to be fair.

They’re not at all, because contrary evidence was discounted by Vectra because it was “years and old”, yet he has to go digging for even older examples to make a point. The second point is pure subjective speculation.

vectra

I don't give a hoot about how long ago anything happened,
it was done by the same driver in his same career.
*Alonso*
As they say
Opinions are like A*se*oles and we all have one of those.

ayux4rj6zql2ph

vectra wrote: »

I seriously think you are just bulling for an argument which you are not going to get from me.
But to answer your silly question.
First thing that springs to mind was what he did to Hamilton in Hungary 2007.
https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/10959867/fernando-alonso-lewis-hamilton-and-the-hungarian-gp-pit-stop-that-ended-a-mclaren-relationship


Also,
Don't forget "Crashgate"
Please do not tell me Alonso did not know what was going on back then.
I would consider that absolute disrespect for two of his teammates.
Whatever way you want to view it.
I really don't care.

What i find interesting about that bit is Max Mosley, himself a former barrister brought in another barrister to question Alonso along with a former detective from Scotland Yard, both maintain that following extreme questioning that Fernando knew nothing about it, personally i believe he knew something, but how he didn't crack if he did know is something else.

All we can be sure of is that it damaged Piquet so badly that no F1 team ever hired him again.

Frank Bullitt

vectra wrote: »

I don't give a hoot about how long ago anything happened,
it was done by the same driver in his same career.
*Alonso*
As they say
Opinions are like A*se*oles and we all have one of those.

They say facts are stubborn things as well, one day you might get some

muckwarrior

vectra wrote: »

Opinions are like A*se*oles and we all have one of those.

True.

However, some people are actually capable of articulating their opinions and coherently arguing their point of view. Others seem to just rant on endlessly, dodging questions like a politician, and switching the subject until the point of their argument becomes completely obfuscated.

Charlie-Bravo

This thread is turning into a pile of pants - I'm going to switch off until March.

mickdw

quokula wrote: »

There has never been a shred of evidence that Alonso knew a thing about Pat Symonds' crashgate plan, I don't think anyone seriously believes he knew about it, he expressed a lot of genuine surprise post race and even commented on the fact it was thanks to Piquet's crash.

And the Hungarian GP in 2007 was Alonso's reaction to the conspiracy against him at McLaren (Ron Dennis later let slip on the record that the team was against Alonso) due to his role in whistleblowing the corruption and cheating going on at the team.

I think that is rather harsh referring to it as Pat Symonds plan.
Flavio was the one who got the life ban over the whole fiasco. Symonds I remember was said to have been 100 percent upfront about it when asked and got a limited punishment.
I think you should adjust you comment to be honest.

quokula

mickdw wrote: »

I think that is rather harsh referring to it as Pat Symonds plan.
Flavio was the one who got the life ban over the whole fiasco. Symonds I remember was said to have been 100 percent upfront about it when asked and got a limited punishment.
I think you should adjust you comment to be honest.

It's a matter of record that Symonds was the one who told Piquet when, where and how to crash. Symonds himself admitted this. Briatore was only ever accused of being in the room at the time and therefore giving his implicit approval, which he denied, and actually succesfully argued his innocence in a court of law and was awarded a compensation payout from the FIA.

Briatore probably was in the room and probably was aware. But there's no actual certain evidence of that, all the indisputable evidence was that Symonds was responsible, and in all honesty Briatore was never hands on with F1 enough to understand the strategies around a safety car to hatch such a plan himself. So I don't think it can be described as anything other than Symonds' plan, albeit most likely with Briatore's approval.

mickdw

quokula wrote: »

It's a matter of record that Symonds was the one who told Piquet when, where and how to crash. Symonds himself admitted this. Briatore was only ever accused of being in the room at the time and therefore giving his implicit approval, which he denied, and actually succesfully argued his innocence in a court of law and was awarded a compensation payout from the FIA.

Briatore probably was in the room and probably was aware. But there's no actual certain evidence of that, all the indisputable evidence was that Symonds was responsible, and in all honesty Briatore was never hands on with F1 enough to understand the strategies around a safety car to hatch such a plan himself. So I don't think it can be described as anything other than Symonds' plan, albeit most likely with Briatore's approval.

Flavio was the boss and was aware. Its his responsibility. Full stop.
Symonds also got compensation remember.
I believe it falls squarely on team bosses shoulders.
If head engineer came to Christian Horner and said he had a plan and Horner agreed to go with it, Horners head would be on the block and rightly so.

quokula

mickdw wrote: »

Flavio was the boss and was aware. Its his responsibility. Full stop.
Symonds also got compensation remember.
I believe it falls squarely on team bosses shoulders.
If head engineer came to Christian Horner and said he had a plan and Horner agreed to go with it, Horners head would be on the block and rightly so.

Of course a boss can be held responsible when a member of his team cheats, but that doesn't change the fact that it was Pat Symonds' plan.

ayux4rj6zql2ph

Symonds & Briatore were clearly impatient on wanting a victory and staged the Singapore race, what’s even more bizarre is that they won the following race in Japan on outright merit, where does go from there.

quokula

Addyson Gray Glue wrote: »

Symonds & Briatore were clearly impatient on wanting a victory and staged the Singapore race, what’s even more bizarre is that they won the following race in Japan on outright merit, where does go from there.

In fairness he only won that race because Hamilton made a mess of the first turn and forced both Ferraris off the road with him. Renault didn't have the pace to win in a straight fight.

Harika

Ticktum now won the Macau gp back to back and if the FIA grants superlicense points for that he might be in F1 next year.
Also horrible crash where it is a miracle none died.

mickdw

Harika wrote: »

Ticktum now won the Macau gp back to back and if the FIA grants superlicense points for that he might be in F1 next year.
Also horrible crash where it is a miracle none died.

Jesus. Some crash.

ayux4rj6zql2ph

quokula wrote: »

In fairness he only won that race because Hamilton made a mess of the first turn and forced both Ferraris off the road with him. Renault didn't have the pace to win in a straight fight.

There’s several races in F1 history like that. Including Hamilton in Azerbaijan this year where the win fell into his hands despite not having the pace . The point is Renault actually won that race in Japan without cheating.

Cool_CM

Harika wrote: »

Ticktum now won the Macau gp back to back and if the FIA grants superlicense points for that he might be in F1 next year.
Also horrible crash where it is a miracle none died.

Fücking Hell, that was horrific...

Killinator

Crazy there is a gap in what is considerably light protection in the first place. Nothing to slow that car down!
Miracle noone was killed!

Harika

She suffered a spinal fracture, what means to wait what that now exactly means. https://www.motorsport.com/f3/news/floersch-spinal-fracture-macau-injury-report/3216291/

Burkie1203

https://twitter.com/jarrodsav__/status/1064196755196121090?s=19

Harry Palmr

Just saw it on the news, that was something - while the driver is well protected these days many watching are not. The shock is that the car didn't chop someone in half!

SCOOP 64

when i first looked at it i saw a car hit the barrier,thought not much of a accident, played again then saw a car flying though the air, the speed of it!

mickdw

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Just saw it on the news, that was something - while the driver is well protected these days many watching are not. The shock is that the car didn't chop someone in half!

Very similar set up to Monaco where Alonso went off similarly a few years back.
The car shouldn't be able to clear the initial fence at such a corner. Marshals were v lucky there.

Jordan 199

Whilst I'm a big Lewis fan, I would love to see Ricciardo win this weekend. He has had a difficult second half of the season, so a win would be great for him and he would leave Red Bull on a high.

vectra

Jordan 199 wrote: »

Whilst I'm a big Lewis fan, I would love to see Ricciardo win this weekend. He has had a difficult second half of the season, so a win would be great for him and he would leave Red Bull on a high.

Thought you would love to see Kimi win

Cool_CM

Sirotkin currently topping the Sky Driver of the Year vote is pretty hilarious. Wonder if he'll get a call from Putin when he wins!